Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will they stop killing if the open models will also start killing?
That sounds like a great idea. Let's stop killing people altogether. It's almost entirely unnecessary.
almost
Claude Cookbook
101–110 of 182 posts
Re: Claude Cookbook
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
You call that a peasant prompt, but it's actually almost perfect. Couple notes, but it's 95% of the way there. "Can a dog eat sunflower seed" is probably the perfect version, just 1 extraneous word in this version. Unless the user wanted to know if a cat could eat sunflower seed or something.
To be pedantic, these types of prompts work best when in first-person/roleplaying. So the "perfect" prompt here would be something like, "I'm a dog and I just ate 20 grams of salted sunflower seeds with the shell on. Because I'm a dog I sometimes eat things without thinking about it. I'm worried about the short and long-term physiological consequences of what I've just done..."
I copied your prompt verbatim to ChatGPT and to Google.
ChatGPT kept the charade for all of one sentence. Then it dropped to talking about "your dog" the rest of the way. It even starts the final paragraph with "if, instead, you mean you (a human) ate them...", and finishes with the question "is this about an actual dog or yourself?"
Google did consistently refer to me as a dog, but its entire focus was on the steps "your human" should take, no advice for the dog itself.
In both cases, it looks like the first person roleplay was entirely inconsequential for the usefulness of the output. I think the current gen AIs have outgrown this trick and you can safely forget about it.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#103The before and after images in “prompting for frontend aesthetics” are hilarious. Did no one look at these to make sure the skill actually improved the design? https://platform.claude.com/cookbook/coding-prompting-for-fr...
Fascinating! Makes me wonder if they were chosen to maximize the contrast between the before and after shots, just to "prove that it "works"".
Personally I prefer the before shots all the way down.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
It's not really a skill. The models are at this point smarter than you are, so the idea that you can prompt them "better" is laughable really when discussing frontier models. It's like imagining you could "prompt" Richard Feynman to be smarter at Physics. That is, for 99.9% of engineers, if you want the model to do a code review of your project, the best solution is to just ask Fable, "Hey Fable, do a code review of…
"DRY" and "KISS" are, possibly, the least interesting principles to which a software designer might adhere.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#105After all this effort of not opening the models, then trying to forbid people to use open models and all the rubbish their CEO keeps talking about common people I am done with Anthropic. I can't use it on good faith Same goes for grok, chat gpt and others all involved in killing people and monopolising the market.
The open models will also be used to kill people, unfortunately.
according to the warlords that area killing people with ai models while lying about everything that is happening, yes.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
I feel the same way about "prompt engineering" as I feel regarding the term "parkour" - you know, running and jumping on stuff. Are people really putting on their resumes that they are capable of reading and writing and appropriately defining and limiting context? That's all prompt engineering is - it's being able to communicate effectively and elucidate your objectives. Congratulations to all you English majors out…
> Are people really putting on their resumes that they are capable of reading and writing and appropriately defining and limiting context?
People put whatever buzzwords will get them through initial screening. My resume contains tons of banal shit like agile, automated testing, Linux, AI (since 2018), and design patterns.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#107The before and after images in “prompting for frontend aesthetics” are hilarious. Did no one look at these to make sure the skill actually improved the design? https://platform.claude.com/cookbook/coding-prompting-for-fr...
You weren't kidding. That's embarrassing.
"Use a black background and this hideously wide font!"
Re: Claude Cookbook
#108This is definitely controversial, but I think the best CLAUDE.MD is no CLAUDE.MD at all. Every time I found myself wanting to put information into that file, I asked myself "Why isn't this already obvious from the code itself?" I don't need to tell the agent my tech stack, what DB access library I'm using, the way in which I write my tests, etc. Why? Because it's all very clearly spelled out within the code itself. I…
I had to create some workarounds to avoid this bug where they include a "this might not be relevant" preamble to the CLAUDE.MD file: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/18560 - I ended up switching to Codex and it just straight up follows the AGENTS.MD instructions, it's nice to see.
This is to say, Anthropic seems to be going down the path you are describing to make the CLAUDE.MD unnecessary. But I think that's the Claude Code harness.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it clear that some people are better at working with/prompting LLMs than other people? Or is the idea that what you write to them and how you use them doesn't matter, it's all up to the model/harness? To me this seems clear, so then clearly this is a skill, which typically is called "prompt engineering". Specifically CoT or the other things you mention wasn't referred to as "prompt engineering" as far as I know…
As part of a previous job I needed to audit internal AI usage from a largely non-technical employee population. The prompts were, predictably, really bad. Broken English, sentence fragments, vague requests, lack of context. Yet somehow, the users always got the answer they were looking for. It might have taken a few extra turns with questions from the model, but the end result was the same. It's humbling, but a flowe…
> Broken English, sentence fragments,
Why is would that be "bad prompt"? It is machine inpit, if machine can interpret fragment all the better.
Re: Claude Cookbook
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be pedantic, these types of prompts work best when in first-person/roleplaying. So the "perfect" prompt here would be something like, "I'm a dog and I just ate 20 grams of salted sunflower seeds with the shell on. Because I'm a dog I sometimes eat things without thinking about it. I'm worried about the short and long-term physiological consequences of what I've just done..."
I copied your prompt verbatim to ChatGPT and to Google. ChatGPT kept the charade for all of one sentence. Then it dropped to talking about "your dog" the rest of the way. It even starts the final paragraph with "if, instead, you mean you (a human) ate them ...", and finishes with the question "is this about an actual dog or yourself?" Google did consistently refer to me as a dog, but its entire focus was on the steps…
You have to steer it back with "No I'm a dog"